Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Citizens, citizens, Citizens, citizens

“Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you.  For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest.”
            Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas

Hello again world; welcome to my Sixth blog; the sixth in my educational series to you!

"The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable".
James Garfield 1831-1881, 20th U.S. President

For this blog, I am writing about the differences in citizenship as NOTED in the law; United States Supreme Court decisions, as well as a host of other court cases, and what has been legislated in various US Title Codes.  Since, in my last blog I commented that there are at least three different United States, it only follows that there are different citizenships, which shall be proven below.

Let’s begin with the natural person born in the 50 states, better known as the American Citizen [NOT US citizen], governed by the Constitution of these united States of America.  I have chosen to call it the sovereignty of the American born people, and the states, which are Republics!

Sovereignty of the People & States

Starting with a US Supreme Court decision in 1884 below, the court stated that inherent sovereignty lies with the PEOPLE, and NOT the government!

Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), Supreme Court Justice Field:  There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States…In this country sovereignty resides in the people,  and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it.  All else is withheld.

In 1974, the following federal court case specifically noted the differences in government between Europe and America, further commenting that sovereignty remains with the people, and not the government.

Glass v. The Sloop Betsy; 3Dall 6 (1974):  In Europe, the executive is almost synonymous with the sovereign power of a State; and generally includes legislative and judicial authority…Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact (ratified Constitution).  In America, however, the case is widely different.  Our government is funded upon compact.  Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.

In the US Supreme court decision in 1837, noted that the states of the union are separate and independent sovereign nations from the federal government.

New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837):  The state governments, in their separate powers and independent sovereignties, in their reserved powers, are just as much beyond the jurisdiction and control of the National Government as the National Government in its sovereignty is beyond the control and jurisdiction of state governments.
            a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation…

In the US Supreme court decision below, the court confirmed the sovereignty of the American people, and noted the distinction between the subjects of England, and our American sovereign Citizens.

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, at 208:  “Under our system the people, who are there [in England] called subjects, are here the sovereign…Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of a monarch.  The citizen [in America] knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself to whom he need yield which the law secures to him…”

Please read the decisions of the following court cases below, again testifying to the sovereignty of the American born Citizen.

Chisholm. Ex’r. v. Georgia 1 L.ed (2Dall) 415, 472:  “Here [in America] sovereignty rests with the People.

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 458:  “The law subscribes to the king [in America, the People] the attribute of sovereignty; he is sovereign and independent within his own dominion; and owes no kind of subjection to any other potentate upon earth.  Hence, it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters; because no court can have jurisdiction over him; for all jurisdiction implies supremacy of power.”

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 19 How. 577:  “The words ‘People of the United States’ and ‘Citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.  They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty…They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every Citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of the sovereignty…”

Please not in the above case that our form of government is a REPUBLIC!

Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9, 20:  “People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.”

(The word ‘Prerogative’ means, “Exclusive right; a distinctively superior advantage.”)

Hancock v. Terry Elkhorn Mining Co., Inc., Ky., 503 S.W. 2d 710. Ky Const. §4 Commonwealth Ex Rel.  Hancock v. Paxton. Ky..516 S.W. 2d pg 867 [2] CI 3,:  “It is true that at [English] common law the duty of the Attorney General was to represent the King, he being the embodiment of the state.  But under the democratic form of government now prevailing the People are King so the Attorney General’s duties are to that Sovereign rather than to the machinery of government.”

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967):  “In the United States the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their Citizenship.”

The People vs. Herkimer 15 Am Dec 379, 4 Cowen (N.Y. 345, 348 (1825)):  “The People, or the Sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named.  Acts of limitation do not bind the King nor the People.  The People have been ceded all the Rights of the King, the former Sovereign…It is maxim of the common law that when an act of parliament is made for the public good, the advancement of religion and justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, the king shall be bound by such an act, though not named; but when a statute is general, and any prerogative right, title or interest would be divested or taken from the King (or the People) in such case he shall not be bound.”

Hale vs. Henkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74:  “the individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a Citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited.  He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation…He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property.  His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land, long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law and in accordance with the Constitution.  He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

The Siren vs. U.S. 74 U.S. 152:  “It is the doctrine of the common law, that the Sovereign cannot be sued in his own court without his consent.”

Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421:  “There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States.  In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it:  All else is withheld.

Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat, 523, 526, 527):  “Each [state] declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory…The soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the Declaration of Independence as at this very hour.

Blair v. Ridgely, 97 D. 218, 249, S.P., People v. Coleman, 60 D. 581:  “Prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, states possessed unlimited and unrestricted sovereignty and retained the same ever afterward.  Upon entering the Union they retained all their original power and sovereignty, except such as was surrendered to the federal government or they were expressly prohibited from exercising by the United States Constitution.”

Yick Wo vs. Hopkins and Woo Lee vs. Hopins, 118 U.S. 356:  Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law for it is the author and source of law:”  “…While sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the People, by whom and for whom, all government exists and act.”

Billings v. Hall, 7 CA. 1:  “Under our form of government, the legislature is NOT supreme.  It is only one of the organs of that ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY which resides in the whole body of the PEOPLE; like other bodies of the government, it can only exercise such powers as have been delegated to it, and when it steps beyond that boundary, it acts…are utterly VOID.”

Glass v. The Sloop Betsy, 3 Dall 6:  “In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state…where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both…In America, however the case is widely different.  Our government is founded upon a compact.  Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.”

Please make a note below: the term “person” as reflected in Title 1, and Title 26 Federal Income, does NOT include the sovereign [you, a natural person].  So what is a person?  A business, as defined in Title 26 and as such, fall under the jurisdiction of Title 26, to be taxed.  Recall in prior blogs that I mentioned that the IRS was allowed by the Congress to create it’s own language and unique definitions, called the “Peshar” method, in order to mislead the people.

1 USC §1, n 12, United States vs. Fox, 94 U.S. 315:  “Since in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes not employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”

California, Title I, Article I, §100:  “The sovereignty of the State resides in the people thereof.”

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 Oregon 814, 817:  “The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing.  The Corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter power to the state, but the individual’s right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.”

Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Triagle, 421 U.S. 100 (1975):  “…Income tax statutes apply only to state created creatures know as Corporations no matter whether, state, local or federal.”

United States v. Morris, 125 F. Rept. 325, 331:  “Citizens under our Constitution and laws mean free inhabitants [not subjects]…Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges, to enjoy which no written law or statute is required.  These are fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people…That the right to…accept employment as a laborer for hire as a fundamental right is inherent in every free citizen, and is undisputable…”

Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538. (1970):  “…The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, is…a ‘personal’ right, whether the ‘property’ in question is a welfare check, a home, or a savings account.  In fact a fundamental interdependence exists between the person’s right to liberty and the personal right in property.  Neither could have meaning without the other.

So now we come to the 14th Amendment citizen as legislated by the Congress, separate and distinct from the American born Citizen.  Notice that American born natural people are capitalized with a large “C” while the naturalized citizen is not.

The 14th Amendment citizen

Prior to the 14th Amendment of 1868, residents of the Possessions and Territories “belonging to” the [District] United States, defined in the 2nd previously Hooven definition, had no citizenship.  In law, they were referred to as “inhabitants.”  Also, the newly freed slaves were born without citizenship and were not citizens.  In the same manner that a child who is born in the 50 states to “naturalized” citizens, becomes a “natural born” Citizen, black Americans born after the 14th Amendment was ratified were “natural born” Citizens of the state in which they were born.  The 14th Amendment’s use of the word “person” has also been extended by the courts to include [limited to] corporations, which are “juristic” persons.  The 14th Amendment (which was illegally ratified by many states at gunpoint) gave these in habitants and persons a new class of citizenship that did not exist prior to the 14th Amendment, referred to as “citizens of the United states subject to the jurisdiction thereof” or “citizens of the United states subject to its jurisdiction.”  In other words, 14th amendment citizens are slaves, subject to income tax since they are not natural persons, but “juristic” persons.”  American born citizens are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and are therefore not persons, but natural persons.

Amendment 14:  All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction to equal protection of the laws.”

The phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means completely subject to.  That is, those persons born in Territories over which the United States is exclusively sovereign (as limited by Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17).

In reference to the 14th Amendment the 1884 Supreme Court stated: Again, please make not that the United States mentioned here is not the sovereign 50 states, but the federal legislated United States of: Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa.

In the 1884 Supreme Court case below, the court affirmed that naturalized citizens are “subject” to the jurisdiction, and are there slaves!

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 102 (1884):  The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject…”

Blacks Law dictionary, 6th Edition defines “subject to,” as follows:

Subject to:  “Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior…”

Compare with this:

Sovereign:  Having supreme, rank, authority, independent power…indisputable…being above all others…having dominion, power, authority…rightful status of independence and prerogative…greatest in degree.”

The natural born citizens of the 50 states already had sovereign Citizenship, as is evidenced in, Article II, §1, Cl. 5 of our original Constitution:  No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States…”

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687, 688:  “…The 14th Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to ally doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.”

Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 72, 73, 74 (1873):  [Prior to the 14th Amendment]…”it had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union.  Those, therefore, who were born and always resided in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens…[After the 14th Amendment]…”the distinction between citizenship of the United states and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized.  Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state [i.e., born in the District of Columbia], but an important element is necessary to make the former [a citizen of the United States] the latter [a citizen of the state].  He must reside in the state to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to become a citizen of the [United States] Union...”

Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal 43, 47 (1872):  No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction…or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.  The purpose of the 14th Amendment…was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship.  Such persons were not white persons, but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country…

Because the Sovereigns were born as Citizens, the 14th Amendment could not and did not pertain to them.  They did not need citizenship granted as they were “natural bornpreamble Citizens rather than citizens created by legislation.  Their rights were endowed by God and unalienable.

Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 410 (1938):  When the Constitution was adopted, the people of the United States were the citizens of the several states for whom and for whose posterity the government was established.”

Because the 14th Amendment federal government citizenship was the result of a grant from the legislature, United States citizens, subject to its jurisdiction were “granted” legislative civil rights as opposed to “endowed” unalienable Rights.

82 CA 369, 375, 255 P 760:  “A ‘civil right’ is considered a right given and protected by laws, and a person’s enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it.” This means that by legislation, the Congress can strip away your rights as they are not endowed under the Constitution!

This recent 1993 Federal Court ruling in Denver, Colorado below clearly differentiates state citizen’s unalienable rights from the privileges and immunities of the 14th Amendment citizen of the federal government:

Jones v. Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226:  The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. (See Slaughter House cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394. (1873). Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government:  It does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”

The Internal Revenue Service has mislead us into believing that Citizens of the 50 states are the subjects of Title 26, Subtitle A, §1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a non-apportioned graduated individual Income Tax on “citizens.”  Which “citizen” is defined in the 1st Code of Federal Regulations, which interprets and implements the Internal Revenue Code?

Please note that CFR stand for “Code of Federal Regulations.”

26 CFR §1.1-1(c):  who is a citizen:  Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

3A AM Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens:  “A Person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if this birth occurs in a territory over which the United States is sovereign…”

The citizen of the [District] United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is taxed on his or her income, both within and without the [District] United States.  However, 26 IRC §911(a)(1)(2), as of March 31, 2007, creates an exclusion from gross income of up to $80,000 per year [§911(b)(2)(A) of such foreign earned income (income earned in the 50 states, unless if working for any government agency).  There is also an exclusion for total housing costs, not to exceed 16% of the salary (without regard to the $80,000 limit for bona fide residents of foreign countries or sister states).  Such citizens must make separate elections to receive the foreign earned income exclusions and the housing exclusion.  Foreign earned income does not include earned income from U.S. Government sources or income earned by federal Government employees.  A naturalized citizen can sever their “subject” U.S. citizen status by becoming a naturalized Citizen of the state where they live.  The proper form for non-government income earned outside [without the U.S] of the [District] United States is the 2555 (Foreign Earned Income Form.

Disclaimer Disclaimer Disclaimer!

First, this blog you have just read is not an excuse for YOU to NOT file your Federal and State Income Tax every year!  Unless you know Federal and State Income Tax laws thoroughly [and you don’t] and have a great defense attorney, File your returns, pay your taxes every year, and just know that you will have to be satisfied knowing the truth, and that your government is lacking in communicating to the public the truth.  Truthfully, very few lawyers know of this, and those that do, are those who win their legal cases before the U.S. Supreme Court!  This blog is for your education!

Know that the U.S. Congress serves two masters: the 50 Republics [Sovereign Countries] known as the united States of America [U.S. Supreme Court case Hooven v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 674] covered under the Constitution, and the Federal Government seated in Washington D.C., a foreign country!  Two very different animals, however, presented to the public as one, and therein adds to more deliberate confusion.  Like I said, I can’t cover it all down in one simple blog, but I will cover this over many future blog.

I will change the pace in my next blog and cover something entirely different.  I trust however, that you can see that all is not what it appears to be to the casual observer.  It matters not who you elect to the White House or in Congress; all serve the same master and are here to deceive and control you.  There are great deceptions wherever you may look, in every industry; nothing is what it appears to be!  Until then, keep reading…

No comments:

Post a Comment